Has anyone here any experience with both of these lenses please? How do they compare to one another, (apart from the extra zoom on the 300mm)?

I’ve decided to save up for a telephoto lens but I’m not sure which I should go for. The 45-200mm has its appeal due to cost, as there are some pretty good second-hand deals to be found. The 100-300mm has its appeal due to the extra 100mm, but it costs quite a lot more.

I want to be able to take pictures of the birds in our garden and elsewhere when we’re out and about, and of course other wildlife when the moment crops up. I’ll also be using it at the beach for taking photos of fellow kitesurfers and surfers.

From what I’ve researched for sports photography a telephoto with a very low aperture is the ultimate solution, but I shall keep dreaming… I have to be realistic with myself as budget is a major consideration. Also, with my micro 4/3 camera I’m limited to what’s available.

So what would be the best lens, bearing in mind that they will give me the 35mm equivalent of up to 400mm or 600mm with my GX1? Would it be worth me waiting that bit longer to save for the 100-300mm or would the 45-200mm be adequate?

First, sorry, I have no experience with the 45-200mm, but I do own the 100-300mm.

Second, you may also want to consider the other (short/wide) end of the spectrum. i.e. the 100-300mm will leave a pretty big gap (from 42-100mm, which is 84-200mm in 35mm equiv.) between it and your kit lens.

Third, on the other hand, while I think the 45-200mm will do fine for pics of birds in your garden, pics of birds "elsewhere" might pose an issue. And, as I believe I mentioned previously, for surfing, I would definitely recommend the 100-300mm.

Fourth, on the third hand, on a smaller body like the GX1, the additional 1" in length (and this is with the lens completely contracted) of the 100-300mm may feel unbalanced/awkward.

on a smaller body like the GX1, the additional 1" in length (and this is with the lens completely contracted) of the 100-300mm may feel unbalanced/awkward.

Thank you for the prompt response. Good point on the size; would a monopod help with this do you think...?

From what you say, if I went ahead with the 45-200mm, I could find myself wishing that I had the 100-300mm for the extra reach. I have missed not having the ability to get closer action shots down at the beach. On freezing cold days standing around in the water with a waterproof compact is not fun , so a telephoto would be ideal.

I realise I'll have the gap from 42-100m, but that could be an option for Santa later on....

I don't think a monopod would make a significant difference because there's no mount/collar for the 100-300mm. (Actually, there is but it's custom made in Germany and pretty expensive. Although, I suppose you might be able to slap something together with a bracket and screws from the local hardware store--screw one end of the bracket to the monopod and the other end to the camera mount.)

Wow! $99 for the 45-200mm...? Nothing anywhere near that price in good ol' Blighty. That would make the decision easier

Your comments are all food for thought, thank you. With no personal experience of telephoto lenses it's difficult to know what would suit me. Our local (ish) store doesn't have them as it would have been good to go and have a view through the lenses.

Still, there's pennies to be saved in the meantime - and maybe things to be found for selling